<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 16px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div>
<div>
<div>I've participated in the last two meetings of a GNSO Working Group on answering the GAC's request for "reserved" status for Red Cross and the Olympics.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Jeff Neuman of Neustar has been an outstanding chair and is driving us towards specific recommendations, at both the top-level and second-level.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We have another call on 8-Feb and I'm eager for BC member input on the questions below, with respect to just top-level domains:</div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>--Steve</div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><b>Question 1. How should the Olympic and Red Cross/Red Crescent Terms be Treated in the Current Application Round</b></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u>GAC Proposal<br>
</u>At the top level, the request is to protect the Olympic and Red Cross terms like the words “test” and “example” in the Applicant Guidebook (Section 2.2.1.2), extending those terms to multiple languages and receiving consideration during the String Similarity
review. Right now, these terms (in not every language) is in the section entitled “Strings Ineligible for Registration” and would not invoke String Similarity Review.<br>
<u><br>
</u><span style="">· </span> <u>Option 1</u>: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3:<br>
a) Are not considered “Reserved Names”<br>
b) Applied for strings are <u>not</u> reviewed for similarity to the names in Section 2.2.1.2.3.<br>
<u><br>
</u><span style="">· </span> <u>Option 2:</u> Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2..1.2.3 as “reserved names” under Section 2.2.1.2. This means that:<br>
a) the names are not available as gTLD strings to anyone; and<br>
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.<br>
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is
<u>no</u> appeal.<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 3</u>: Treat the terms set forth in Section 2.2.1.2.3 as “modified reserved names” meaning:<br>
a) The names are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as applicable.<br>
b) applied-for gTLD strings are reviewed during the String Similarity review to determine whether they are similar to those in Section 2.2.1.2.3. An application for a gTLD string that is identified as too similar to a Reserved Name will not pass this review.<br>
c) Like other applied for gTLDs not passing String Similarity Review, there is
<u>no</u> appeal.<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 4a</u> – Same as Option 2, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 4b</u> – Same as Option 3, except there would be an appeal process for those organizations that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 5a</u>: Same as Option 3 except that the “modified reserve names” are available as gTLD strings only to the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement or, to those entities receiving
a letter of non-objection from the International Olympic Committee, International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement as applicable.
<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 5b</u>: Same as Option 5a but also to include entities receiving a letter of non-objection from a relevant government.<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 6a</u>: Same as Option 5a, except that there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.<br>
<br>
<span style="">· </span> <u>Option 6b</u>: Same as Option 5b, except there would be an appeal process for those entities that can demonstrate legitimate rights to the “modified reserved names.” Appeal mechanism TBD.<br>
<br>
<b>Question 2. Should the protections set forth in Question 1 apply to languages in addition to those set forth in the chart in Section 2.2.1.2.3? If yes, which additional languages?
<br>
</b>a) <u>Option 1</u>: No, just the languages set forth in the Applicant Guidebook<br>
b) <u>Option 2</u>: Accept GAC Proposal stating asking for protection in “<i>multiple languages -</i> all translations of the listed names in languages used on the Internet.”<br>
c) <u>Option 3</u>: Extending protections to other languages, but a subset of languages.<br>
<u><br>
</u><b>Question 3. Should the Protections in Questions 1 and 2 apply to subsequent gTLD rounds?<br>
<br>
</b>a) <u>Option 1</u>: Yes, it should apply in all future rounds<br>
b) <u>Option 2:</u> No, it should only apply to this current round.<br>
c) <u>Option 3</u>: It should apply in this current round with no decision on subsequent rounds. We should evaluate the results of this initial round, document lessons learned, and then decide on recommendations on subsequent rounds based on the results
of the evaluation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
</body>
</html>